|
On May 30 2009 13:33 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 13:30 jeppew wrote:On May 30 2009 13:23 D10 wrote:On May 30 2009 09:36 jeppew wrote:On May 30 2009 09:34 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 09:32 travis wrote:On May 30 2009 09:30 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 09:27 JWD wrote:On May 30 2009 09:26 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 09:23 JWD wrote:
[quote]
...except being married. Unless you think marriage is worthless? Marriage is between a man and a woman, period. They aren't losing out on anything that a married couple has. Marriage is sacreligious. Even though I'm agnostic I can at least recognize this. I have no problems with civil unions. It's a contract with the state for explicit benefits. I'm fine with that. Marriage, however I am not. Thank you for regurgitating your original claims instead of addressing my point or answering my question. I'm going to stop debating with you now, because you show no interest in backing your claims. I answered your question. You don't think marriage is between a man and a woman, I do. Therefor see them trying to impose their ideological views on the church, and anyone who disagrees with them on the history, and name of marriage. If its state benefits they are after they have those all ready. What do homosexuals really want? Ask yourself this. And since when does 1 religion define institutions in this country? Sorry buddy, but neither the U.S.A. nor marriage belong to Christianity. What do homosexuals really want? Equal rights. fucking duh Marriage is not a right. The benefits that you get when you are married, you get in a civil union. Tell me, what do married couples have that those in civil unions don't have. Not sure if you know this, but name a religion that allows 'gay' marriage. Islam? Ha! funny. They'll kill you if you're gay. Buddhism? Hinduism? it has to be a religion? Once I walked into a spiritualist church and the priest started the lecture by saying "theres nothing against gay people in the holy word" So yep, you have limited your thoughts so much that you have become like a barbarian that never leaving your island think the world doesnt go anywhere beyond it. i'm a barbarian because i asked wether marriage must be allowed by a religion? You are a barbarian becaouse you had to ask And Aegraen, yep its a right universal to all groups, of 2 adult human beings. Seriously, you are a pedophile, play the devil advocate's here and tell me how would you make the argument that because any group of 2 adult human beings being able to marry that would theoretically extend that right to groups bigger than 2 people or children or animals, explain.
edit: misunderstanding.
|
On May 30 2009 13:35 keV. wrote:
If civil unions provided the SAME EXACT benefits that marriages did AND was recognized by the entire nation, you would hear less uproar.
Some gays are crazy, I'm sure they love nothing more than going to war with the one thing that has kept them under a microscope their whole lives (religion) fighting endlessly for the word "marriage."
If the fight was honestly just for the word marriage, then I would tell them to shut it too. However, that is not the case.
I wouldn't. The letter of the law reflects and changes the morality of the people. Basically, the law should reflect the societal ideal. So in this case it would be the ideal that gay and straight people are treated and looked at equally.
|
On May 30 2009 13:33 jeppew wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 13:31 Nadagast wrote:On May 30 2009 13:28 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 13:26 D10 wrote:
And btw, what the hell does gay marriage has to do with pephilia, poligamia and zoophilia or anything else for that matter.
If law can be as specific as to how much %of a substance you can trow in the air it can be specific in this.
And marriage being between 2 consenting HUMAN adults is nothing far fetched or that suggests base for none of those things Because a right is universal to all groups, not specific groups. Is voting a right? I'm pretty sure we don't let felons vote, right? Not making any moral equivalences, just saying, rights aren't necessarily shared by 100% of the population felons have their rights removed because they commited a crime, this isn't a fair comparison by any standard.
I know and I'd say that for much the same reason, a 40 year old man has no right to marry a 10 year old girl, because sometimes rights aren't 100% 'do-whatever-you-want' universal
|
On May 30 2009 13:40 Nadagast wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 13:33 jeppew wrote:On May 30 2009 13:31 Nadagast wrote:On May 30 2009 13:28 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 13:26 D10 wrote:
And btw, what the hell does gay marriage has to do with pephilia, poligamia and zoophilia or anything else for that matter.
If law can be as specific as to how much %of a substance you can trow in the air it can be specific in this.
And marriage being between 2 consenting HUMAN adults is nothing far fetched or that suggests base for none of those things Because a right is universal to all groups, not specific groups. Is voting a right? I'm pretty sure we don't let felons vote, right? Not making any moral equivalences, just saying, rights aren't necessarily shared by 100% of the population felons have their rights removed because they commited a crime, this isn't a fair comparison by any standard. I know and I'd say that for much the same reason, a 40 year old man has no right to marry a 10 year old girl, because sometimes rights aren't 100% 'do-whatever-you-want' universal
Well that's what he would say to a man trying to marry a man
|
On May 30 2009 13:39 DamageControL wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 13:35 keV. wrote:
If civil unions provided the SAME EXACT benefits that marriages did AND was recognized by the entire nation, you would hear less uproar.
Some gays are crazy, I'm sure they love nothing more than going to war with the one thing that has kept them under a microscope their whole lives (religion) fighting endlessly for the word "marriage."
If the fight was honestly just for the word marriage, then I would tell them to shut it too. However, that is not the case. I wouldn't. The letter of the law reflects and changes the morality of the people. Basically, the law should reflect the societal ideal. So in this case it would be the ideal that gay and straight people are treated and looked at equally.
Thats silly and also impossible, have you been to the south? Its more important that they are viewed as equal by the government, one word isn't going to change generations of bible thumping.
|
On May 30 2009 13:18 2b-Rigtheous wrote:lol. It amuses me that people actually believe that this is a matter of individual rights. Prop 8 is nothing more than an attempt to normalize homosexuality, that's all it is, nothing else. Homosexuals already have the same rights (with a few minor exceptions) in a domestic partnership, it's not about rights!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI-GjWY-WlAhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_California#Differences_from_Marriage
Jan and Tom decided that if we allowed black people to be married it could have harmful consequences. Jan and Tom's children might be read stories about two black people being married. Churchs might be required to marry black people. And adopted children might be placed under the care of BLACK PEOPLE!
Jan and Tom are still friends with there black nieghbors. In fact there having a BBQ right now. But they decided that its ok to discriminate as long as you can justify it with fearful scenarios.
|
On May 30 2009 13:41 keV. wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 13:39 DamageControL wrote:On May 30 2009 13:35 keV. wrote:
If civil unions provided the SAME EXACT benefits that marriages did AND was recognized by the entire nation, you would hear less uproar.
Some gays are crazy, I'm sure they love nothing more than going to war with the one thing that has kept them under a microscope their whole lives (religion) fighting endlessly for the word "marriage."
If the fight was honestly just for the word marriage, then I would tell them to shut it too. However, that is not the case. I wouldn't. The letter of the law reflects and changes the morality of the people. Basically, the law should reflect the societal ideal. So in this case it would be the ideal that gay and straight people are treated and looked at equally. Thats silly and also impossible, have you been to the south? Its more important that they are viewed as equal by the government, one word isn't going to change generations of bible thumping.
Of course it's silly and impossible. It's they ideal. Equal by the government only comes when they both are recognized as marriage. Is it progress to get separate but equal? yes. Is it perfect? no.
|
On May 30 2009 13:41 DamageControL wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 13:40 Nadagast wrote:On May 30 2009 13:33 jeppew wrote:On May 30 2009 13:31 Nadagast wrote:On May 30 2009 13:28 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 13:26 D10 wrote:
And btw, what the hell does gay marriage has to do with pephilia, poligamia and zoophilia or anything else for that matter.
If law can be as specific as to how much %of a substance you can trow in the air it can be specific in this.
And marriage being between 2 consenting HUMAN adults is nothing far fetched or that suggests base for none of those things Because a right is universal to all groups, not specific groups. Is voting a right? I'm pretty sure we don't let felons vote, right? Not making any moral equivalences, just saying, rights aren't necessarily shared by 100% of the population felons have their rights removed because they commited a crime, this isn't a fair comparison by any standard. I know and I'd say that for much the same reason, a 40 year old man has no right to marry a 10 year old girl, because sometimes rights aren't 100% 'do-whatever-you-want' universal Well that's what he would say to a man trying to marry a man
Yeah except there is informed consent in the adult man + adult man case, in the 10 year old + 40 year old case, the 10 year old can't give informed consent
|
I am a christian and I am not sure what to think about prop 8. According to my religion Homosexuality is a sin, but so are a lot of of other things. To me gay marriage is not a big deal because it does not really hurt me. But it pisses me off to see people call proponents of prop 8 "disgusting trash" and acting like if you believe gay marriage is wrong you are a troll or an idiot. It is not unreasonable to be concerned with the effects gay marriage could have on society and your children. I don't see how this is pure discrimination when domestic partnerships have the same legal rights and privileges as marriages in California.
|
On May 30 2009 11:45 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 11:43 travis wrote:
that's because he very very clearly chooses the posts that will be easy for him to respond to, and doesn't respond to the other stuff.
this has been pointed out over and over, in other threads than this one as well. There's like 8 people I'm talking to, I have a life outside this forum. How about you go into every thread and debate with multiple people. Of course its not reasonable for me to respond to every post.
Fair enough but from what I have observed it seems like you skip over the best points. Just opinion, but I do try to be impartial.
|
On May 30 2009 13:43 Nadagast wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 13:41 DamageControL wrote:On May 30 2009 13:40 Nadagast wrote:On May 30 2009 13:33 jeppew wrote:On May 30 2009 13:31 Nadagast wrote:On May 30 2009 13:28 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 13:26 D10 wrote:
And btw, what the hell does gay marriage has to do with pephilia, poligamia and zoophilia or anything else for that matter.
If law can be as specific as to how much %of a substance you can trow in the air it can be specific in this.
And marriage being between 2 consenting HUMAN adults is nothing far fetched or that suggests base for none of those things Because a right is universal to all groups, not specific groups. Is voting a right? I'm pretty sure we don't let felons vote, right? Not making any moral equivalences, just saying, rights aren't necessarily shared by 100% of the population felons have their rights removed because they commited a crime, this isn't a fair comparison by any standard. I know and I'd say that for much the same reason, a 40 year old man has no right to marry a 10 year old girl, because sometimes rights aren't 100% 'do-whatever-you-want' universal Well that's what he would say to a man trying to marry a man Yeah except there is informed consent in the adult man + adult man case, in the 10 year old + 40 year old case, the 10 year old can't give informed consent
Well that's what I would respond. Then he would tell you about how it endangers society and how it's unnatural. And how they already have rights.
The paradox of anti-gay marriage is this: If getting the word marriage is no big deal, then why not let them get it?
If it IS a big deal, then they should be allowed to get it, because not getting it is violating their rights.
|
On May 30 2009 13:46 2nd1rst wrote:
I am a christian and I am not sure what to think about prop 8. According to my religion Homosexuality is a sin, but so are a lot of of other things. To me gay marriage is not a big deal because it does not really hurt me. But it pisses me off to see people call proponents of prop 8 "disgusting trash" and acting like if you believe gay marriage is wrong you are a troll or an idiot. It is not unreasonable to be concerned with the effects gay marriage could have on society and your children. I don't see how this is pure discrimination when domestic partnerships have the same legal rights and privileges as marriages in California.
Domestic partnerships ARE NOT THE SAME THING as marriages. They are regulated by state and sometimes not even recognized period. If you don't see the issue with that, then you are a god damn idiot. I don't care if you are religious or not.
|
On May 30 2009 13:32 DamageControL wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 13:28 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 13:26 D10 wrote:
And btw, what the hell does gay marriage has to do with pephilia, poligamia and zoophilia or anything else for that matter.
If law can be as specific as to how much %of a substance you can trow in the air it can be specific in this.
And marriage being between 2 consenting HUMAN adults is nothing far fetched or that suggests base for none of those things Because a right is universal to all groups, not specific groups. No its not.
legally it isn't, but morally I agree with aegraen
|
On May 30 2009 13:48 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 13:32 DamageControL wrote:On May 30 2009 13:28 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 13:26 D10 wrote:
And btw, what the hell does gay marriage has to do with pephilia, poligamia and zoophilia or anything else for that matter.
If law can be as specific as to how much %of a substance you can trow in the air it can be specific in this.
And marriage being between 2 consenting HUMAN adults is nothing far fetched or that suggests base for none of those things Because a right is universal to all groups, not specific groups. No its not. legally it isn't, but morally I agree with aegraen
? please explain
|
On May 30 2009 13:48 DamageControL wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 13:48 travis wrote:On May 30 2009 13:32 DamageControL wrote:On May 30 2009 13:28 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 13:26 D10 wrote:
And btw, what the hell does gay marriage has to do with pephilia, poligamia and zoophilia or anything else for that matter.
If law can be as specific as to how much %of a substance you can trow in the air it can be specific in this.
And marriage being between 2 consenting HUMAN adults is nothing far fetched or that suggests base for none of those things Because a right is universal to all groups, not specific groups. No its not. legally it isn't, but morally I agree with aegraen ? please explain
What right should not extend to all groups?
|
On May 30 2009 13:47 DamageControL wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 13:43 Nadagast wrote:On May 30 2009 13:41 DamageControL wrote:On May 30 2009 13:40 Nadagast wrote:On May 30 2009 13:33 jeppew wrote:On May 30 2009 13:31 Nadagast wrote:On May 30 2009 13:28 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 13:26 D10 wrote:
And btw, what the hell does gay marriage has to do with pephilia, poligamia and zoophilia or anything else for that matter.
If law can be as specific as to how much %of a substance you can trow in the air it can be specific in this.
And marriage being between 2 consenting HUMAN adults is nothing far fetched or that suggests base for none of those things Because a right is universal to all groups, not specific groups. Is voting a right? I'm pretty sure we don't let felons vote, right? Not making any moral equivalences, just saying, rights aren't necessarily shared by 100% of the population felons have their rights removed because they commited a crime, this isn't a fair comparison by any standard. I know and I'd say that for much the same reason, a 40 year old man has no right to marry a 10 year old girl, because sometimes rights aren't 100% 'do-whatever-you-want' universal Well that's what he would say to a man trying to marry a man Yeah except there is informed consent in the adult man + adult man case, in the 10 year old + 40 year old case, the 10 year old can't give informed consent Well that's what I would respond. Then he would tell you about how it endangers society and how it's unnatural. And how they already have rights.
It doesn't endanger society at all; gay people are already living together and having relationships and the world hasn't exploded. 'Unnatural'? As if that's a good argument that anything is bad, and it's not even true... Heh.
I know you aren't making these points, but I wanted to reply to hypothetical-Aegraen
|
On May 30 2009 13:49 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 13:48 DamageControL wrote:On May 30 2009 13:48 travis wrote:On May 30 2009 13:32 DamageControL wrote:On May 30 2009 13:28 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 13:26 D10 wrote:
And btw, what the hell does gay marriage has to do with pephilia, poligamia and zoophilia or anything else for that matter.
If law can be as specific as to how much %of a substance you can trow in the air it can be specific in this.
And marriage being between 2 consenting HUMAN adults is nothing far fetched or that suggests base for none of those things Because a right is universal to all groups, not specific groups. No its not. legally it isn't, but morally I agree with aegraen ? please explain What right should not extend to all groups?
Well what do you mean by morally? Voting is arguable. Although I think it should go to everyone. The right to bear arms?
|
On May 30 2009 13:51 DamageControL wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 13:49 travis wrote:On May 30 2009 13:48 DamageControL wrote:On May 30 2009 13:48 travis wrote:On May 30 2009 13:32 DamageControL wrote:On May 30 2009 13:28 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 13:26 D10 wrote:
And btw, what the hell does gay marriage has to do with pephilia, poligamia and zoophilia or anything else for that matter.
If law can be as specific as to how much %of a substance you can trow in the air it can be specific in this.
And marriage being between 2 consenting HUMAN adults is nothing far fetched or that suggests base for none of those things Because a right is universal to all groups, not specific groups. No its not. legally it isn't, but morally I agree with aegraen ? please explain What right should not extend to all groups? Well what do you mean by morally? Voting is arguable. Although I think it should go to everyone. The right to bear arms?
ok well I guess you are right heh. I didn't consider some things.
the penal system and children are examples where this breaks down
but I think that most rights should be extended to all groups
|
On May 30 2009 13:47 keV. wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 13:46 2nd1rst wrote:
I am a christian and I am not sure what to think about prop 8. According to my religion Homosexuality is a sin, but so are a lot of of other things. To me gay marriage is not a big deal because it does not really hurt me. But it pisses me off to see people call proponents of prop 8 "disgusting trash" and acting like if you believe gay marriage is wrong you are a troll or an idiot. It is not unreasonable to be concerned with the effects gay marriage could have on society and your children. I don't see how this is pure discrimination when domestic partnerships have the same legal rights and privileges as marriages in California. Domestic partnerships ARE NOT THE SAME THING as marriages. They are regulated by state and sometimes not even recognized period. If you don't see the issue with that, then you are a god damn idiot. I don't care if you are religious or not.
What do you mean they are "regulated by state and sometimes not even recognized period." Can you give a few examples. I am genuinely interested in this, because as i stated in my post I am not sure what to think of prop 8.
|
You can not have 'separate but equal'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
